Marshall Helmberger,
Respondent vs. Johnson Controls, Inc., Appellant, Office of Administrative
Hearings, Respondent, Architectural Resources, Inc., Appellant – Case No.
A12-0327:Appellant Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) had
contracts with a school district that related to the construction and
renovation of schools. JCI subcontracted with appellant Architectural
Resources, Inc. (ARI) to perform architectural services related to those
contracts. Respondent Marshall Helmberger made a
request under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), Minn. Stat.
§§ 13.01-.90 (2012), for a copy of the subcontract. After JCI declined to
provide a copy of the subcontract, Helmberger filed a
complaint with the Office of Administrative Hearings. An administrative law
judge dismissed the complaint, concluding in part that the subcontract did not
involve the performance of a government function within the meaning of Minn.
Stat. § 13.05, subd. 11(a). The court of appeals reversed.

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are
presented: (1) whether a private contractor is subject to the same requirements
of the MGDPA as a government entity when its contract with a government entity
does not contain the statutorily required contractual notice; (2) whether a
private contractor is subject to the same requirements of the MGDPA as a
government entity when its contract with a government entity promotes “the
general public welfare;” and (3) whether a private entity who contracts with a
government entity must be performing a governmental function in order to be
subject to the requirements of the MGDPA.(Office of Administrative Hearings)

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol

State of Minnesota, Appellant vs. Daniel
James Rick, Respondent – Case No. A12-0058:Appellant the State of Minnesota charged respondent Daniel Rick with
attempted first-degree assault under the
knowing-transfer-of-communicable-disease statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.2241 (2012).
Subdivision 2(1) of this statute makes it a crime for a person who knowingly harbors
an infectious disease to engage in “sexual penetration with another person
without having first informed the other person that the person has a
communicable disease.” Subdivision 2(2) makes it a crime for a person who
knowingly harbors an infectious disease to “transfer . . . blood, sperm,
organs, or tissue, except as deemed necessary for medical research or if
disclosed on donor screening forms.”

At trial, the
complainant testified that he engaged in sexual activity with Rick on three
occasions and that Rick did not tell him he was HIV positive. Rick, however,
testified that he informed the complainant that he was HIV position before they
engaged in sexual activity.

The jury acquitted
Rick of violating subdivision 2(1), but it found him guilty of violating
subdivision 2(2). A divided court of appeals panel reversed Rick’s conviction.

On appeal to
the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether a
defendant can violate Minn. Stat. § 609.2241, subd. 2(2), by having consensual
sex with another person after disclosing that the defendant is HIV positive;
(2) whether Minn. Stat. § 609.2241 is unconstitutionally vague; and (3) whether
Minn. Stat. § 609.2241 violates the constitutional right to privacy. (Hennepin County)

State
of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Mark Myrl
Burrell, Appellant – Case No. A11-1517:A jury found appellant Mark Burrell guilty of
two counts of aggravated forgery, and the district court imposed concurrent
sentences. On appeal, Burrell challenged his convictions and sentences. While
his appeal was pending before the court of appeals, Burrell died. Relying on
the doctrine of abatement ab initio, which provides
that death pending direct review of a criminal conviction abates the appeal and
all proceedings in the prosecution from its beginning, defense counsel filed a
motion to abate Burrell’s convictions. The court of appeals denied the motion
and dismissed the appeal.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is
whether Minnesota should adopt the doctrine of abatement ab
initio in the context of a defendant who dies while an appeal of right is
pending. (Mower County).

Safety Signs, LLC, Appellant vs. Niles-Wiese Construction Co.,
Inc., Defendant, Westfield Insurance Company, Respondent – Case No. A12-0370:When
appellant Safety Signs, LLC did not get paid for work on a public project,
Safety Signs mailed notice of a payment-bond claim to the primary business
address of the general contractor, rather than the address listed on the
payment bond, as stated in Minn. Stat.§ 574.31, subd. 2(a) (2012). Respondent
Westfield Insurance Company, which issued the payment bond, refused to pay the
claim. The district court granted summary judgment to Safety Signs on its
action to recover under the subcontract. The court of appeals reversed,
concluding that “strict compliance with the notice requirements of the bond
statute is a condition precedent to a payment-bond claim.”

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are
presented: (1) whether the notice of a payment-bond claim was sufficient under
Minn. Stat. § 574.31 (2012); (2) whether the court of appeals erred when
it determined that the surety and general contractor could not waive or modify
the address on the payment bond by their actions; and (3) whether a surety
has standing to challenge service of a payment-bond notice on a contractor. (Steele
County)

Three
months after the discovery deadline, Custom Conveyer filed a motion seeking
commissions that would ask a court in Nevada to issue subpoenas to allow it to
depose two non-party witnesses who resided in Nevada. Custom Conveyer contended
that these depositions were needed to preserve the testimony of these witnesses
for trial. The district court denied Custom Conveyer’s motion.

A
jury subsequently found that both Custom Conveyor and TC had breached the
contract and that TC was entitledto damages
totaling $205,553. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order
denying Custom Conveyor’s motion to conduct the out-of-state depositions.

On
appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the trial court
abused its discretion when it denied Custom Conveyor’s request to take the
depositions of two out-of-state witnesses in order to preserve their testimony
for trial when that request was made after the discovery deadline. (Sherburne
County)

Monday, May 13, 2013

Courtroom
300, Minnesota Judicial Center

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. William Francis Melchert-Dinkel, Appellant – A11-0987:The State
charged appellant William Melchert-Dinkel with intentionally
advising, encouraging or assisting suicide in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.215,
subd. 1 (2012). Before trial, appellant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing
that section 609.215 is overbroad and vague under the First Amendment of the United
States Constitution. The district court denied appellant’s motion. Following a
stipulated-facts trial, appellant was found guilty, convicted and sentenced. The
court of appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction.

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are
presented: (1) whether appellant’s communications are protected under the First
Amendment; and (2) whether Minn. Stat. § 629.215 is overbroad or vague
under the First Amendment. (Rice County).

State
of Minnesota, Appellant vs. Brett David Borg, Respondent – Case No. A09-1912:A jury found respondent Brett Borg guilty of third-degree
criminal sexual conduct. Following sentencing, the district court ordered Borg
to pay a specific amount of restitution. Borg requested a restitution hearing, and
the district court granted that request. After a hearing, the district court
issued an amended restitution order, awarding all of the restitution requested by
the State, except the amount that had been requested to cover expenses for the
victim’s family to attend trial.

The State appealed the amended
restitution order. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal, concluding that
the State could not appeal the amended restitution order.

On appeal to the supreme court, the
issue presented is whether the State may appeal a restitution order that is
filed more than 90 days after the original sentence is imposed. (Mille Lacs County)

Nonoral:Demetrius
Devell Dobbins, Sr., petitioner, Appellant vs. State
of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A12-0678: Following a jury trial,
appellant Demetrius Dobbins was convicted of first-degree murder. The supreme court
affirmed his conviction. In 2009, Dobbins filed a petition for postconviction
relief, which was denied without a hearing. The supreme court affirmed the
district court in part but concluded that Dobbins was entitled to a hearing on
his claim that a witness had testified falsely at trial. The matter was
remanded to the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing to address
whether Dobbins was entitled to postconviction relief on the basis of his false
testimony claim.

On remand, the district court held an evidentiary
hearing. Following the hearing, the district court concluded that Dobbins was
not entitled to a new trial because of false trial testimony, and it denied the
postconviction petition.

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are
presented: (1) whether the district court erroneously determined that Dobbins
had not established that he was entitled to a new trial because of false trial
testimony; and (2) whether the district court erroneously denied Dobbins’
request for advisory counsel at the postconviction hearing.(Anoka County)

Nonoral:Jana
Karl, et al., Appellants vs. Uptown Drink, LLC, et al., Respondents – Case No.
A12-0166:Appellants Jana Karl, et al., were employed
by respondents Uptown Drink, LLC, et al., as servers, bartenders, and security
guards.Among other claims, appellants
alleged that respondents violated Minn. Stat. § 181.79 (2012), which prohibits
an employer from making deductions from an employee’s “wages” for lost or
stolen property.Following a jury trial,
the district court denied appellants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on
this claim, ruling that “wages” excludes gratuities and there was no evidence
that deductions for losses had been taken from anything other than
gratuities.The court of appeals
affirmed.

On appeal to the supreme court, the
issue presented is whether Minn. Stat. § 181.79 makes it unlawful for an
employer to make a deduction from an employee’s wages for lost or stolen
property, even if the deduction comes from an employee’s gratuities and does
not drop an employee below the minimum wage. (Hennepin County)